Active Users:329 Time:13/07/2025 03:51:03 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Um Sareitha Sedai Send a noteboard - 05/11/2012 06:04:12 PM
we should just do away with the whole electoral college and have ohio decide every presidential election from now on :rolleyes:


No thank you :P

If you are from Betelgeuse, please have one of your Earth friends read what I've written before you respond. Or try concentrating harder.

"The trophy problem has become extreme."
Reply to message
Could Ohio Kill the Electoral College? Joel - 05/11/2012 04:43:48 PM 701 Views
Well, let's hope Romney takes Pennsylvania, too, so we don't have to worry about this. *NM* Tom - 05/11/2012 05:46:22 PM 103 Views
you're delusional if you think romney is going to carry PA moondog - 05/11/2012 05:58:16 PM 275 Views
I do not think even the GOPs massive PA vote suppression effort is enough to accomplish that. Joel - 05/11/2012 06:38:05 PM 374 Views
It's not impossible. I roughly reversed engineered Silver's tipping point simulation... Burr - 05/11/2012 11:06:16 PM 424 Views
It was not impossible, but was highly improbable. Joel - 12/11/2012 07:20:10 PM 285 Views
that seems to be what all the liberals keeo tellying themselves random thoughts - 06/11/2012 06:21:47 PM 235 Views
yard signs do not usually translate to actual voter sentiment moondog - 06/11/2012 06:23:39 PM 212 Views
You were saying? Joel - 12/11/2012 07:52:35 PM 218 Views
what? directly vote for president? COMMUNISM! moondog - 05/11/2012 06:01:00 PM 278 Views
Um Sareitha Sedai - 05/11/2012 06:04:12 PM 257 Views
Seems like everything is communism these days, even/especially things that are not. Joel - 05/11/2012 06:56:55 PM 255 Views
Ugh. Sareitha Sedai - 05/11/2012 07:23:37 PM 363 Views
It is an appallingly large number. Joel - 05/11/2012 07:40:47 PM 258 Views
A simple solution: proportional allocation of electors from each state with 15 votes or more. Tom - 05/11/2012 08:34:08 PM 266 Views
I prefer 1 EV per house district, with 2 EVs going to state winners Larry - 05/11/2012 08:40:50 PM 366 Views
it would certainly make the races more interesting..... moondog - 05/11/2012 09:09:24 PM 220 Views
If not for gerrymandering I would consider this the ideal solution. Joel - 05/11/2012 09:26:01 PM 239 Views
But in that system, the small states would be bypassed completely Tom - 05/11/2012 09:55:49 PM 273 Views
You mean even more than they already are (outside of the NH primaries)? Larry - 05/11/2012 11:17:14 PM 230 Views
Me too actually, but only with computerized semi-random redistricting *NM* Isaac - 06/11/2012 05:38:25 AM 93 Views
why would there need to be a nation-wide recount? don't the states keep their own tallies? moondog - 05/11/2012 09:08:04 PM 268 Views
What if none of the states were close enough for a recount, but the country as a whole was? Legolas - 05/11/2012 09:23:33 PM 229 Views
i suppose at that point the Supreme Court would have every justification to hear the case.... moondog - 06/11/2012 06:07:06 PM 335 Views
What Legolas said; if we did it by national popular vote, recounts would need to be national. Joel - 05/11/2012 09:34:30 PM 328 Views
I like that idea, though I have long felt Larrys idea of using Congressional Districts is better. Joel - 05/11/2012 09:22:49 PM 390 Views
So you undermined your own argument from the start... Tom - 05/11/2012 10:01:07 PM 240 Views
i've always favored district lines by ZIP code myself moondog - 05/11/2012 10:05:59 PM 320 Views
Um... WHAT? Republicans have 9/13 CDs in NC. Joel - 12/11/2012 07:52:16 PM 360 Views
But why do people bleive big states need more power? random thoughts - 06/11/2012 06:31:22 PM 273 Views
I was not asked but will answer anyway: They do not. Joel - 12/11/2012 07:45:26 PM 387 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes